Tension is running high in Kenya in the wake of an historic general election that took place March 4. On Saturday, March 16, presidential candidate and outgoing Prime Minister Raila Odinga filed a petition with the Kenyan Supreme Court, disputing the election results announced March 9, which state that he was defeated by a 50 to 43 percent margin. The purported victor is Uhuru Kenyatta, one of the wealthiest men in Kenya and currently on trial for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.
The entire world is watching this process with bated breath, in the hopes that it does not devolve into chaos, as the 2007 general election did. In 2007, Odinga ran against Mwai Kibaki and, in a similar fashion, lost by a narrow margin. He then accused Kibaki’s party of rigging the vote, thereby inciting a bloody ethnic conflict between members of his own tribe, the Luo, and members of Kibaki’s tribe, the Kikuyu. Years of bitter ethnic rivalry and pent up resentment exploded in a horrific display of violence. Over 1,200 Kenyans lost their lives.
This time around, both Odinga and Kenyatta have repeatedly urged their respective supporters to maintain the peace in Kenya regardless of the election’s results. Even President Obama urged the Kenyans not to turn to violence, sending the citizens a video message reminding them, “Kenyans have made remarkable progress since the devastating violence that followed the elections five years ago.”
The Kenyan media council has also instated strict rules to ensure that journalists take a much more objective and removed stance on the election than they did in 2007. At that time, many believed the media was largely responsible for antagonizing both sides of the conflict through the use of hate speech and exaggerated claims; television and radio broadcasts, according to some, may have directly caused the killings.
But perhaps the biggest change in Kenya since 2007 is the new constitution — drafted in 2010 — that the nation finally adopted this year. The document has brought many changes to Kenya. It abolished the office of Prime Minister, a position created by former United Nations Director Kofi Annan primarily to appease Odinga in the wake of his 2007 loss. The new constitution has also established the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission board, a diverse and nonpartisan group responsible for collecting and announcing the election results.
The government also brought in 22,600 observers to monitor the electoral process and ensure nothing goes awry; in fact, almost 2,500 of these observers are completely independent and hail from other countries. Coupled with the steps taken by the ICC to prosecute those responsible for galvanizing the violence last time (including Kenyatta), there seems to be no measure the government didn’t take to minimize the risk of bloodshed.
And, happily, the measures seemed to do their job as the results were announced on March 9. Unhappiness was rampant and Odinga mirrored his own reaction from 2007 by crying foul, but no lives were lost. This success, while clearly a triumph for human rights and democracy, is also to the benefit of the international community. Kenya is the largest economy in East Africa and a trade hub for the entire continent. It has also historically been the most stable nation among its neighbors, and the U.S. views Kenya as a vital ally in its fight against Muslim extremists in Somalia.
Despite the relatively peaceful nature of this year’s election, Kenya still has a distance to go before its governmental system can truly be deemed democratic. If Odinga’s petition holds ground with the Supreme Court, then the prevailing political party in Kenya will have been found guilty of such undemocratic acts as ballot-stuffing and numbers inflation.
Another major shortcoming with the Kenyan system is that, to this day, the Kikuyus are considered the political elite. They have dominated elections and will have produced three of the country’s four presidents if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Kenyatta. And, while in power, they have unfailingly rewarded only members of their own tribe, largely ignoring the plights of Luo tribe-members. Only after this uneven political divide has been bridged and resources have been shared equitably between both halves of the nation’s constituency can Kenya truly be considered democratic.
As millions of Kenyans flocked to the polls on March 4, hope was the dominant theme across the nation. Hope for a nation united, hope for democracy, and, most of all, hope for peace. Though Kenya still has multiple obstacles to overcome on its path to democratic governance, this fierce optimism among its constituents and the successful avoidance of bloodshed after this election bode well for the nation’s future.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.